Landmark Case On IPC Display
Landmark Case On IPC Display
Landmark Case On IPC Display
ON
INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
1. Subramaniam Swamy Vs UOI
The Supreme Court of India dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the
criminal offense of defamation, holding that it was a reasonable restriction on the
right to freedom of expression. The case had been brought by several petitioners
charged with criminal defamation. They argued that the offense of criminal
defamation inhibited their speech. The Court found that there existed a
constitutional duty to respect the dignity of others.
ACCIDENT SEC-80
1. Tunda Vs State
In this case, the accused Tunda and the deceased were friends who
were very interested in wrestling and were engaged in a wrestling
bout. While wrestling, the deceased got injured on his head and it
resulted in his death. In this case, Allahabad Highcourt observed that
the injury caused by death was the result of an accident and there was
no foul play on part of the accused. In addition to that, the court held
that there was an implied consent of the deceased in taking any risk in
the wake of wrestling. Therefore the accused was entitled to get
benefits under both Section 80 and 87.
INSANITY sec 84
1. R vs Daniel
2. Queen-Empress vs K. N. Shah
3. Lakshmi vs State
3. Rex vs Maekin
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in accordance with the majority
opinion. The Court dismissed the challenge to the constitutionality of Section
302 of the IPC in so far as it prescribes the death sentence, as well as, the
constitutionality of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973 was rejected.
The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty under
section 302 under which Nanavati was charged, Mr. Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the
sessions judge) considered the acquittal as perverse, and took a historic decision of
overturning the jury's decision.
The Lordship had brought forward the differences between Section 299 and 300 of the IPC.
The court had stated that there was absence of intention. In both, Section 299 and 300, the
The court held that the law is not limited by religion or the triple talaq. As such, section 125
is applicable to everyone.
opportunity to pick another wife. Therefore, the husband is punishable under section 494 of
the IPC.
The judgment is one of its kind and has overruled all the previous
PREVIOUS YEAR
QUESTIONS
b. Wrongful Confinement
2. The distinction between section 299 and 300 was made clear by
Melvill.J.in
b. Reg Vs Govinda
c. Govinda Vs Reg
d. Reg Vs Hayward
a. NALSA Vs UOI
1. Mahadev V B.S.F